Tuesday, November 06, 2012

I don't necessarily subscribe to the concept of generational dynamics, but I do find it to be an interesting perspective. Regardless, it certainly provides a unique take on the presidential election today and inspires some reflection on my part. I don't often make public my meanderings, by which I mean ideas I cannot articulate in what I consider to be an adequately defensible manner, but since we're basically engaging in multiple levels of societal haruspicy here, I suppose it can't hurt so long as everyone realizes this is little more than following the idea flow wherever it happens to go:

Can generational theory predict who will win the presidential election? Probably not, but based upon historical precedent, during times of Crisis the country usually turns to a Prophet generation leader who provides a new vision and summons the moral authority to lead. This leader may not have the right vision or have the backing of the entire population, but he is not afraid to take bold action. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was despised by many, but he boldly led the country during the last Crisis. Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election with only 39.8% of the popular vote, but he unflinchingly did whatever he thought was necessary to achieve victory and preserve the union. Prophet leaders like Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin offered the sense of moral urgency required to sustain the American Revolution. Strauss & Howe give a historical perspective on Prophet generations.

“Prophet generations are born after a great war or other crisis, during a time of rejuvenated community life and consensus around a new societal order. Prophets grow up as the increasingly indulged children of this post-crisis era, come of age as narcissistic young crusaders of a spiritual awakening, cultivate principle as moralistic mid-lifers, and emerge as wise elders guiding another historical crisis. By virtue of this location in history, such generations tend to be remembered for their coming-of-age passion and their principled elder stewardship. Their principle endowments are often in the domain of vision, values, and religion. Their best-known historical leaders include John Winthrop, William Berkeley, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, James Polk, Abraham Lincoln, Herbert Hoover, and Franklin Roosevelt. These were principled moralists, summoners of human sacrifice, and wagers of righteous wars. Early in life, few saw combat in uniform; later in life, most came to be revered more for their inspiring words than for their grand deeds.” - The Fourth Turning – Strauss & Howe

Barack Obama was born in 1961. According to the Strauss & Howe generational distinctions, this makes him an early Gen-Xer. His life story matches that of the Nomad archetype. His chaotic early life, confused upbringing by an array of elders, frenetic alienated early adulthood as a community organizer, and his rise to power through his public speaking talent and pragmatic ability to achieve his agenda is a blueprint for a Nomad. Mitt Romney was born in 1947 [Prophet - VD] and grew up during the American High. His childhood was idyllic and privileged. His moral Mormon youth as a missionary eventually devolved into his yuppie “greed is good” career at Bain Capital acquiring companies, making them more efficient (firing Americans & hiring Asians), and spinning them off, while siphoning millions in fees. He has tried to convince Americans to vote for him, based upon his business acumen and moral lifestyle, as the cure for what ails America. With the continued downward spiral of societal mood, record low trust in Congress and 60% of Americans thinking the country is on the wrong track, the odds should favor the Prophet candidate. The 40% of Americans who think the country is on the right track are a tribute to our awful government run public education system or are smoking crack.

The Barack Obama presidency has many similarities to the one-term presidencies of Herbert Hoover and James Buchanan. Both men were overwhelmed by rapidly deteriorating events, an inability to understand the true nature of the Crisis, and failure to inspire the American people to rally behind a common cause. Both men drifted off into obscurity and are overwhelmingly acknowledged as two of the least successful presidents. The men who succeeded them are ranked by historians at the top of the list, even though they are both despised by more libertarian minded citizens as proponents of big government solutions and control. Libertarians will not be happy with developments over the next fifteen years. This Crisis is an era in which America’s corrupt social order will be torn down and reconstructed from the ground as a reaction to the unsustainable financial pyramid scheme which is an existential threat to the nation’s very survival. Civic authority will revive, cultural manifestation will find a community resolution, and citizens will begin to associate themselves as adherents of a larger cluster.

Barack Obama has fallen short as a Crisis leader, just as Buchanan and Hoover fell short. Buchanan also tried to maintain the status quo and not address the key issues of the day – secession and slavery. His handling of the financial Panic of 1857 led to annual deficits that exceeded 13% of GDP during his entire presidency. His legacy is one of failure and hesitation. Hoover was a technocrat with an engineering background who failed to recognize the extent of the suffering by the American people during the early stages of the Great Depression. It is a false storyline that he did not attempt to use the power of the Federal government to address the economic crisis. Federal spending increased by over 20% during his term and he was running a deficit when Roosevelt assumed power. Hoover was an activist president who began the public works programs that FDR expanded and dramatically increased taxes on the rich and corporations in 1932.

Obama inherited a plunging economic situation and proceeded to make choices that will make this Crisis far worse than it needed to be. He has failed miserably in addressing the core elements of this Crisis that were foreseen by Strauss and Howe over a decade before the initial spark in 2008. Debt, civic decay, rising wealth inequality due to the rise of our plutocracy, and global disorder are the underlying basis for this Crisis. Obama’s response was to run record deficits driving the national debt skyward, failing to address the unfunded entitlement liabilities that loom on the horizon, bowing down before the Wall Street mobsters and paying their ransom demands, layering on more complexity and unfunded healthcare liabilities to an already teetering government system, and extending our policing the world foreign policy at a cost of $1 trillion per year. A Crisis requires a bold leader who makes tough choices and leads. Obama has proven to not be that leader. Based on historical precedent and the rapidly deteriorating mood of the country, it would be logical for the country to select Romney, a Prophet generation leader.

This analysis rather ominously parallels what I have observed about Mitt Romney's character during the Republican primaries and at the Republican National Convention. Because he governed as an unprincipled moderate in Massachusetts, and because he has an affable public personality, very few observers realize that the man has a strong will to power and authoritarian instincts. Being a Mormon, he likely possesses the same sense of self-justification by historical persecution that many revolutionary Jews have had, and he will acknowledge no allegiance to the mainstream Christians and evangelicals who elected him.

We already knows he views himself as a Mr. Fix-it, and quite reasonably so. I suspect, therefore, that he might surprise everyone and abandon all pretense of political moderation if he perceives what I and other economic observers have long perceived and concludes that the nation, as well as the global financial system, is on the verge of collapse. What I don't know is which way he will jump if he goes Full Fix-it; I assume he is a conventional globalist who will follow the usual path of doing the same thing, only at the next level, but then again, his Mormonism could be an indication that he will take a different and less predictable path. After all, if there is an individual that is going to address the immigration and vibrancy problem that is fracturing the country in such a predictably conclusive manner, it is most likely one from a group has religious justification for doing so in its most sacred scripture.

Here is the vital point. Mitt Romney appears to be a principled man with a public track record of no conventional political principles. He has flip-flopped so many times on so many major issues that no one can possibly say with any degree of plausibility what his true political ideology is, if one can even be said to exist. He has bound himself to nothing and no one. So, this raises the obvious question: what are his underlying principles? I suspect he has been practicing a Mormon form of taqiyya for a long, long time, and we will only discover what those principles are if Romney is elected and comes to believe the national situation is dire enough to justify him revealing himself and taking action in full Prophet mode.

82 Comments:

There's no taqqiya here. That implies an ideology to be hidden. Romney is a full melonhead, and a highly intelligent one.

What I think your generational dynamics is saying is that in corrupt chaotic times centralizing charismatic melon despots rise to the top. Because they are the only ones who can. That is what Romney is. So I think he will have an effective reign.

I think part of the Mormon heritage is a persecution complex. While I haven't seen that in Mitt, RNC actions to shut down the Paulistas at the convention demonstrate at least some insecurity on his part and a desire to not put up with or listen to dissent on his own side before he cuts a deal with the liberals.

First I think fiscal conservatives will be greatly disappointed. Then anyone that understands the problems of the banking system will probably be next in the disappointment line. I don't see him making the banks reform. I can't recall that he has even discussed it, or for that matter that a single reporter has asked him about it.

Koanic, could you please enlighten us further on the traits of Melonheads?

Having lived among Mormons and even in a majority (80-90+%) Mormon community for a number of years, I can say that they follow an interesting mixture of idealism and practicality, which Romney also seems to exhibit in spades. Romney has a strong moral compass ("a principled man") but is willing to do what is necessary to get the job done and accomplish his goals ("with a public track record of no conventional political principles"), so if he wins I think that is what the U.S. is going to see.

My only question with regards to generational dynamics is that I think it is still too early, and that we will not see the bottom of the next (financial market) crisis until around 2016 (like Prechter suggests), which would tend to make me think that Romney would be a one-term president, again, if he wins.

Fact: Romney is the goldman sachs candidate for 2012 that Obama was 2008. Fact: Romney has publicly endorsed NDAA. Fact: Up until a few months ago church leaders were calling Mormonism a cult and were preaching that their false religion would send them to hell.Fact: Politically connected church leaders such as Billy Graham have been falling over themselves to not only embrace Romney but Mormonism, changing their entire rhetoric on it from "cult" to "non-biblical Christianity". Fact: Romney proved to everyone that he will not be undermined at the RNC by replacing delegates with his own, pre=scripting votes, and kidnapping those who might vote contrary to his wishes.

My prediction: Romney will exercise NDAA on a relatively broad basis against dissenters and will implement laws that prohibit "hate speech" from churches.

What an interesting take on Mittens. I have just taken it as read that he will govern solely in the interests of the financial elite and bring America to it's knees, but do it faster and more effectively than Obama.

Mitt Romney has run for election on two principles: "do whatever it takes not to be outspent" and "I should be President."

Assuming he is elected, which I think likely, I expect him to govern with the idea of winning a second term ("I should be President") by doing absolutely anything to maintain the approval of big money donors, particularly ardent Zionists ("do whatever it takes not to be outspent").

Considering generational politics and complete disconnects from reality. Once again, America has only 2 choices, picked not by the people but by fraudulent voting machines, party brass and whatever other ______ is left to insert.

Today on CNBC.com is a piece about wall st. turning on Rom-Ryan. Apparently some donors just don't believe Rom and are perfectly fine with another 4 more years. GS or Goldman is happy with either candidate. Also today is Pat Buch. op-ed discussing the age of austerity. I would suggest that the defense budget will only expand exponentially.

Neither candidate is uncomfortable with the NDAA, patriot act or exercising drones abroad or stateside. Nor are they too enthusiastic about disappearing jobs and the reduction or destruction of the middle class in America.

Are more failed economic policies in our future? I would suggest so; "There is nothing normal about our current economic situation. The unfunded liabilities at the Federal, State and local levels of government accumulate to over $200 trillion. Do the facts detailed above lead you to believe we can return to pre-2007 normal in the near future, or ever? Not only has the economic situation of the country deteriorated enormously, the very culprits who created the disaster are more powerful than they were before the global catastrophe caused by their criminal risk taking."

(MF Global, innocent.) I suggest that today is just another day, another step towards the unknown, weird and possibly ominous.

It will be interesting to note how the ratings do as tonight is another SOA night on FX and if there will be any civil unrest in response to whomever wins. What is also interesting are the number of voters who look not to themselves for their personal success but to someone else who could less about anything other than this poorly paid oval office gig. One has to wonder why anyone would want it and why anyone would believe that any good will come out of any of these administrations.

(Personal disclosure: not permitted to vote in this election due to residency and varying degrees of refusal/disinterest in liars, police staters and leadership fraudsters.)

expected it to one day "be hanging by a thread" whence it will be restored to vigor through LDS leadership.

This is the controversial White Horse Prophecy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_ProphecyThe official LDS position is the same as the statement by Romney that it is "speculation and discussion by church members" and "not official church doctrine." Unofficially, however, I have heard many Mormons, and especially the slightly older (40+) and more conservative ones, talk about it as if it was doctrine.

Mitt would revere the Constitution? I doubt it. Would anyone suggest that his varying, changing stances on issues are heretical to his religion or have general been outside the norm of what Mormons believe?

Read what I wrote above: "interesting mixture of idealism and practicality"

From what I have seen and experienced, Mormons can be roughly divided into two types.

There are the true believers who will follow principle and idealism to extreme and even absurd levels - for example, a person prescribed caffeine by a doctor for migraines or other ailment who refuses to drink coffee and instead insists on taking caffeine pills in order to observe the letter (but not necessarily the spirit) of their Word of Wisdom (the doctrine that tells them not to use alcohol, tobacco, etc.). Or, a lower level official that refuses to give permission to enter one of their temples to a person with the same ailment who decides instead to drink coffee. Don't laugh - I've seen both.

And then there are the who believe and revere, but don't let it get in the way when things need to get done. That is to say, they will follow observe ideals and principles as far as they do not become an extreme (definitions vary) hindrance, but if there is something just needs to happen and a particular doctrine is in the way, well, that's where the 'practical' aspect comes in. This can appear in little things (e.g., drinking a small amount of coffee every day for an ailment), or big things (maybe this applies to Romney's flip-flopping to navigate whatever political waters he finds himself in at the time, and maybe not).

Easy guess as to which type rises to leadership positions like Romney has.

I can't say what Romney will do as president if he wins, but I will say that it should be interesting to watch from a distance either way.

All day yesterday, on the radio, one "Christian" talking head after another kept spouting off about how we"re not electing a Pastor In Chief and voting for Mitt is gonna save this country. Freaking morons and sellouts. This mormon freak, or any mormon for that matter, can never be trusted. It will be funny when the mormon messiah takes their guns away and they'll sit there scratching their heads pondering it all. O is a lazy empty suit, mittens is a highly motivated cult member, lets see how that works out for the churchians. Stupid fools.

"Always the people cry out for a king in times of crisis and they usually get one good and hard."

Sure, a king with drones. It reminds of when people whine about their free speech yet fail coherent thinking skillz. When the Christian Right, Pat Robertson, etc., are calling for a Mitt proto type generic repub, it will be highly entertaining to see the results.

My suspicion of Romney has nothing to do with his Mormonism and everything to do with the fact that he has no consistent political record, and his past actions are quite troubling. His past does tell us that he is confident and decisive, so whatever he decides to do, he will do it fervently. All together, a dangerous combination.

Step right up folks and let me guess your personality simply by the year of your birth.

It doesn't predict a person's personality, it predicts which archetypes will become the leaders of their generation. It's cycle theory. Do they shoehorn the data? I haven't read it, so I can't say, but it speaks to a truth. The Chinese have a saying "Wealth does not pass the third generation." Why is that? It is exactly the same idea as the 4th turning.

The difference between Romney and Obama is that Romney wants to be President of a great country that he loves. Obama merely wants to be President to spite his enemies.

Of course, Romney's vision of a "great country" is one where the ruling class jewish plutocrats continue to screw us, and thousands of our boys continue to die in pointless wars on behalf of said ruling class jews. But that's way better than Obama's vision for the country which is a smoldering ruin, lorded over by the ape queen Michelle.

See Romney as gov. Of Mass. Assault weapons ban. Dont take a politician at his word, but at his actions.

I absolutely do not defend Romney's total record in Massachusetts (he raised a lot of fees to hide his tax increases), but some of the policies are simply impossible to stop because of the overwhelming Democrat legislature. In most areas of Mass, there are 0 Republicans on the ballot.

If I were to run for office from Massachusetts with plans of higher office, I would either govern similar to how Romney did, or I'd go total stealth mode and run as a Clinton-style Democrat who'd counterpush through some conservative economic reforms to make myself electable nationally. Then when I got into office, I'd show my true colors and get real bipartisan with the GOP. There's simply no other way to get elected, other than to move, but unless you're Hillary Clinton, it's very tough to win office in a new state.

Romney's vision of a "great country" is one where the ruling class jewish plutocrats continue to screw us, and thousands of our boys continue to die in pointless wars on behalf of said ruling class jews.

Mormons do claim close kinship with the jews.

Of course, they never really bothered to ask the jews what they think of that...

And Mitt has only been a "flip-flopper" on issues he doesn't care about. On fiscal/immigration issues and foreign policy he's a steady rock. Neo-Con in Foreign policy and Bushie in economics. As for immigration - look for Mitt to be speaking in Spanish by 2016.

Mitt is the son of a moderate (R) governor, former governor of Massachusetts, a Harvard educated MBA, a multi-millionaire globalist. He's basically a Mormon Bush. Look for lots of "reaching across the aisle'; help for Goldman Sachs and Citibank, cutting the capital gains tax, aid for Israel, war on Iran, and the gutting of SS and medicare. Oh, not to mention Amnesty and Open borders As for the dumb-cluck SoCons - they'll get nothing.

10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.

11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

I don't need to do anything of the kind. Unlike both conservative and liberal blogs, I permit people to speak their minds here so long as they do so in a reasonably civil manner. I suggest you need to think long and hard about why you find an opinion about the current state of the union, whether it is right or wrong, to be "disgusting" and worthy of silencing.

The one flaw I see in this theory is that the book is talking solely of white America, Mexicans in their 20's are not considered millennial, etc. The last turning was in the 60's with the 1960 census recording a 88.6 white population. The new turning started in 2008 with the 2010 census recording a 72.4 white population. So whatever happens in this turning should affect a full 15% less of the population.

Indeed, Josh. Yet Jews and Christians who should know better, and who certainly know about Saul and the path that led to Babylon, still cry out for a king to rule them. Of course, unchanging human nature is a two edged sword: the fools who cry our for kings should recognize that human nature will lead those kings to excess and folly, and those of us who rightly regard them as fools should recognize that this type of foolishness is also a part of human nature and plan accordingly.

So whatever happens in this turning should affect a full 15% less of the population.

No. It will still affect them and they will affect any such turning by how they react to it and/or which direction they push the turning (i.e. pushing for a socialist dictatorship instead of for more liberty). You are right, though, that they are a bit of a wild card that wasn't really addressed by Strauss and Howe.

Strauss & Howe detail the turnings of the saeculum for Anglo Saxon culture stretching several centuries back before the immigration to and founding of America. So it is not just for the U.S. Furthermore, they posit that each Fourth Turning brings an existential crisis, so according to the generational dynamics theory, the coming crisis will either result in a revival (return to precedence) of Anglo Saxon culture in some form, or an end to Anglo Saxon cultural dominance if the society is unable to survive the crisis.

Maybe Romney will win and maybe not, but I have serious doubts that the S&H's 4-generation cycle applies to America any more. Public school, the Internet, and massive non-Anglo-Germanic immigration might have wrecked whatever mechanisms drove that cycle in previous generations.

according to the generational dynamics theory, the coming crisis will either result in a revival (return to precedence) of Anglo Saxon culture in some form, or an end to Anglo Saxon cultural dominance if the society is unable to survive the crisis.

Anglo Saxon cultural dominance is already waning to a large degree, so the country as a whole will not continue as an Anglo Saxon enterprise. The question becomes one of whether Anglo Saxons will submit to the dominance of various vibrant groups or if the country will divide into Anglo Saxon dominated portions along with minority dominated portions. Northeastern liberal Anglo Saxons will likely submit along with some of their liberal cousins in the upper Midwest. Parts of the Southwest will be overtly dominated by the mestizo migration. Whither then the Southeast, lower Midwest, and Rockies? The mestizo vote is only useful to the Yankee liberal as long as it helps him dominate the rest of the country. Should parts of the country start going their own way and, in one form or another, avoid the dominance of the Yankee liberal, one suspects that the Yankee liberal will not see nearly as much advantage to paying for mestizo welfare at least in part from his own pocket.

"Of course, Romney's vision of a "great country" is one where the ruling class jewish plutocrats continue to screw us, and thousands of our boys continue to die in pointless wars on behalf of said ruling class jews. But that's way better than Obama's vision for the country which is a smoldering ruin, lorded over by the ape queen Michelle."

More insightful than anything you're likely to read in today's NYT."Ape queen" may be a bit over the top, but I bet her bench press is better than her husband's.

Whenever I waste time reading doom p0rn, I take a step back and remind myself that "saecular" humanity has no idea how horrible it's going to get. Strauss and Howe are pontificating about the mole hills while ignoring the gigantic mountains of death that will be brought by the hand of Almighty God in judgment upon the earth.

Strauss and Howe could not ask a more pertinent question: "Are you prepared?"

The new turning started in 2008 with the 2010 census recording a 72.4 white population.

A lot of those "whites" are really mestizos, as shown in numerous mugshots you can view online. Non-Hispanic White 196,817,552, 63.7% of the total U.S. population in 2010 census.

Start your proto-secessionist movements now!!

Use initiative and referendum to get PR with low threshold adopted in your locality. Tell the knuckleheads that it's the Israeli system (true) so it must be good. If Greece and Finland used the archaic Anglo-American plurality voting system True Finns and Golden Dawn-if they even existed- would today be as impotent as the US Libertarian or Constitution parties.

TLM November 06, 2012 7:05 AMThis mormon freak, or any mormon for that matter, can never be trusted. It will be funny when the mormon messiah takes their guns away and they'll sit there scratching their heads pondering it all...Stupid fools.

You may discover you're the stupid fool, TLM.

Even in communist California, I know several Mormons who legally (and illegally) have more guns than children. I imagine there are far more personal firearms in Utah than there are people in pews on any given Sunday. Mormons know very well what happens when a population is deprived of its means for self-defense.

Maybe East Coast "liberal" Mormons like Romney are less "gun-happy" than the average Latter-day Saint. (Romney is a "life" member of the NRA only because he bought the title.) But our LDS ward (like most others I know) routinely has firearms training with the Boy Scouts. (You damn well better shoot straight as be straight to be a Mormon.)

I assure you, Mormons are no more inclined to relinquish their firearms to Romney than they were to give up their wives to Joseph Smith.

Public school, the Internet, and massive non-Anglo-Germanic immigration might have wrecked whatever mechanisms drove that cycle in previous generations.

There may be folkway remnants here and there, but Anglo-Saxon culture has largely been supplanted by Judeo-African mass consumer culture out of Hollywood.

As far back as 1948 Yockey saw this coming:http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/09/a-contemporary-evaluation-of-francis-parker-yockey-part-2/(...)Yockey had a similar understanding of the workings of soft totalitarianism. In The Proclamation of London, he writes:

The degradation of social life did not merely happen, it was planned, deliberately fostered and spread, and the systematic undermining of the entire life of the West continues today.

The instruments of this assault and the weapons of propaganda, press, radio, cinema, stage, education. These weapons are controlled at this moment in Europe almost entirely by the forces of Culture-disease and social degeneration.

The “chief fount” is Hollywood, which “spews forth an endless series of perverted films to debase and degenerate the youth of Europe” after having successfully destroyed the youth of America.[7]

Concomitantly “a vicious literature” promotes the “destruction of healthy individual instincts, of normal familial and sexual life, of disintegration of the social organism into a heap of wandering, colliding, grains of human sand.”

The message of Hollywood is the total, significance of the isolated individual, stateless and rootless, outside of society and family, whose life is the pursuit of money and erotic pleasure. It is not the normal and healthy love of man and wife bound together by many children that Hollywood preaches, but a diseased erotic-for-its-own sake, the sexual love of two grains of human sand, superficial and impermanent. Before this highest of all Hollywood’s values everything else must stand aside: marriage, honor, duty, patriotism, sternness dedication to self to a higher aim. This ghastly distortion of sexual life has created the erotomaia that obsesses millions of victims in America, and which has now been brought to the Mother-soil of Europe by the American invasion.[8](...)

Outlaw X November 06, 2012 7:30 AMI keep hearing about the White Horse Prophecy In Mormonism,, although I don't know what it is, but something about becoming a dictator. Sounded like too much non-sense for me to look it up though.

Joseph Smith purportedly said that (I'm paraphrasing) "when the Constitution would hang by a thread, the elders of Israel would rise up to save it".

According to Wikipedia: "Smith reportedly said that "You will see the Constitution of the United States almost destroyed. It will hang like a thread as fine as a silk fiber.... I love the Constitution; it was made by the inspiration of God; and it will be preserved and saved by the efforts of the White Horse, and by the Red Horse who will combine in its defense." Smith additionally said, according to the diary, that the Mormons would send missionaries to "gather the honest in heart from among the Pale Horse, or people of the United States, to stand by the Constitution of the United States as it was given by the inspiration of God."

Who is the White Horse? The Red Horse?

Glenn Beck (in my mind) is doing more to fulfill this prophecy than anything Romney can (or will) do. Both make a formidable team. Latter-day Saints have already "risen up" to (try to) "save marriage" in California. They can be counted on to do what it takes to preserve the inspired principles of the Constitution...even if the country itself (with Hairy Weed) goes to hell.

However, by the looks of the Mormon Church's 1.5 billion dollar investment in City Creek Center in downtown Salt Lake City, it appears that the Church's leadership sees a very bright future yet for the United States.

I've found generational dynamics to be quite useful, even though I'm no acolyte (if such things exist). When I first read the 4th Turning back in the 1990s, I was dubious at the outset but persuaded that it, at the very least, provided a useful filter by which to organize recent history.

The mere fact that I can read my copy from '95 (or whenever it first came out) and still see interesting patterns and relevant projection says something. I can't say that for any other guessing books at the time (the only one I can think of is Butterfly Economics off the top of my head, and I only remember that one for how provably wrong it was at publication.)

It has a very stable and detailed pattern recognition built in. I don't know if that means it is accurate, but I like the architecture.

rcocean November 06, 2012 8:25 AMMitt is the son of a moderate (R) governor, former governor of Massachusetts, a Harvard educated MBA, a multi-millionaire globalist. He's basically a Mormon Bush. Look for lots of "reaching across the aisle'; help for Goldman Sachs and Citibank, cutting the capital gains tax, aid for Israel, war on Iran, and the gutting of SS and medicare. Oh, not to mention Amnesty and Open borders As for the dumb-cluck SoCons - they'll get nothing.

You fail to account for one thing: Romney's Book of Mormon foretells that America will be destroyed if she does not repent. Of what? Of sin, yes.

But also of endless, unjustified, aggressive war-mongering; of elitist plutocrats living off the socialized labor of others; of lawyers stirring up controversies to get gain; of rapacious gangsters marauding and pillaging the erst-while peaceful and law abiding people; of vexatious taxation (a BoM income tax of 20% was considered immorally high under "normal" circumstances); of suppressing and persecuting those who call upon Jesus Christ as their Lord and God, both in public and in private; of those who would call good evil and evil good.

The Book of Mormon has been Romney's life-long template. He has studied from it, lived by it and taught it since his youth. He will rule (if elected) as a righteous Nephite leader would endeavor to reign.

One would do well to study how righteous Nephite leaders administrated in the Book of Mormon: they established democratic republics, eschewed war, promoted free trade, education and immigration (within limits) -- and fought like hell when the neighboring savages (and naturally-born apostates) sought to overthrow their country of freemen.

Romney doesn't just wish to be king. He wishes to be a righteous Nephite leader.

GoodwillOf course you western mormons will cling to your guns, you must be prepared to slaughter the next Baker–Fancher wagon train that comes across the Mountain Meadow.

I'll say this for you though, if your comments on here are an indication of your actions, you've been more discerning over mormon mitt than all the other fawning slobbering evangelicals that so readily back this guy.

The one flaw I see in this theory is that the book is talking solely of white America, Mexicans in their 20's are not considered millennial, etc. The last turning was in the 60's with the 1960 census recording a 88.6 white population. The new turning started in 2008 with the 2010 census recording a 72.4 white population. So whatever happens in this turning should affect a full 15% less of the population.

Nope, the turning will affect a full 100% of the population, becuase whatever the anglo population decides to do, it will do. None of the rest will be able to stop or divert it. The last turning saw the country decide to take on all comers around the world at the same time, and both the Germans and the Japanese - two of the more functional societies outside the US - were flattened within four years.

The characteristic of an Unravelling - the previous twenty years - is the population arguing with itself, split on what to do and which direction to go. Stuff falls apart while society argues. Eventually, a new generation gets tired of the crap and picks a direction. That's the theory anyway. If it's true, then the rest of the world, including the part of it that lives in the US, is in for a ride.

If you don't understand why being in the same mold as Lincoln and FDR makes you the greater evil, there is truly no hope for your understanding. Because you've been reading on this site for awhile and should know the great amount of evil those 2 did to our Constitution and society.

I would love to see some of the bigger states have their electoral votes broken up into small chunks. No candidate comes to California except to raise obscene amounts of ca$h, because this communist state is always in the bag for 55 votes for team blue. If the candidates had to actually win over by proportion, that would be different.

Plus, it would make the national elections much less of a sure thing to predict.

Obama is most certainly not a Gen Xer. The changes between 1961 and 1981 are too great to classify those 20 years as one generation. Someone born late 1960's to late 1970's yes, but 1961 is pre-revolutionary America. The "Sixties" started in 1964 when The Beatles toured the U.S., and later with Altamont and Woodstock. For the people in the interior, the Sixties happened in the Seventies. Obama is a later baby-boomer.

Obama is most certainly not a Gen Xer. The changes between 1961 and 1981 are too great to classify those 20 years as one generation. Someone born late 1960's to late 1970's yes, but 1961 is pre-revolutionary America. The "Sixties" started in 1964 when The Beatles toured the U.S., and later with Altamont and Woodstock. For the people in the interior, the Sixties happened in the Seventies. Obama is a later baby-boomer.

No, you are way off there on multiple fronts. a) You generation is not determined by geography, b) even if it was, the dude was born in Hawaii. Pretty sure that's not the interior, brah. c) A generation is almost universally regarded as a discrete 20 year period (roughly) and d) a baby boomer is almost always born to a member of the war-fighting generation. e) Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, was of the very late silent generation or a boomer herself. f) Gen Xers are the children of Silents or Boomers. g) Obama was universally regarded as the first younger-than-Boomer to be elected.

I could go on. [Obama's dad, were he American, would be squarely in the Silent Generation, too. Only the earliest of the Silents were old enough to have babies in the boom generation following WWII].

He's definitely Gen X by nearly any measure, quantitative or qualitative - nomadic, purposeless, cynical, and less of a destroyer of worlds.

The difference between most favored Romney living the dream of his well-known father and an outcast faking the Dreams of His Unknown Father is generational.

You are crazy if you can't see the gen differences between Rom and Obam.

The most important part of that article (I read it on ZH yesterday) are the numbers - what has happened economically in the past 5 years alone. 1+1 =/ 172. The real Production is flat for a decade. Artificially low interst rates. They're stuck. It's all about The DEBT.

If individuals cannot (and do not even believe in doing so themselves!) make the debt model work personally, why have they believed this thing called "Government" (read: force) can, should, or will? Where is the GDP to fund the coming $5 - $7 Trillion budget? $100Trillion in future promises? Where is the Production to pay for it. It does not and will never exist.

As KDenninger points out, SickCare funding alone is going to equal the whole of the current federal budget withing 2 decades (generous). The numbers leads one to assume this is just the foot in the door for a Nationalized, single-payer system.

Leading to this statement from the article: The mathematical impossibility of sustaining our economic system is absolute.

I respectfully - and stridently - disagree. I did not imply that generations are determined by geography; you missed my point. I am a Gen Xer (1974) and to me Obama is completely wrapped in Sixties mythology. By the time Reagan came to power, he was a 20 year old man; I was 6. Most demographers chart Gen X as mid-1960's to mid-1980's precisely because of the radical changes that I spoke of. Though I put very little stock in generational thinking, I can tell you someone in my New Order orbit has more in common socially, intuitively, with a Millenial Moby kid than with a very late Boomer like Obama. As for parents, that matters even less. I was born to parents in their mid-forties, which means there is no Baby Boomer in my immediate family. Many people in my age group have a Silent gen father and Boomer mom. I stick to what I said. The first real Gen X person in the White House will be Ryan, assuming Romney wins.

So, contrary to both Romney's actions as governor and his statements as a candidate for public office, you believe he's going to be a constitutional president?

If so, than Romney is a liar. Does mormonism endorse lying?

America doesn't follow the Constitution anymore. You want Romney to follow Queensberry Rules in a street fight? He wouldn't stand a chance.

If America can tolerate JFK, LBJ, RWN, GRF, JEC, GHWB, WJC, GWB, and BHO, I think we can tolerate a do-gooder, rule-bending Batman (who has a solid understanding of both government and business) and his savvy Boy Wonder running mate.

It's so hard to find such Article like this and such blog like this one , you have a lot to give so please continue . I realy love and admire to surf in blogs like this ine and coment in . So good work man continue what you are doing you wil reach the top soon .Please Visit my blog and let your comment :Netbook